April 23, 2014

Justice Stephen Breyer concurred in the judgment on much narrower grounds. He was part of the Grutter majority in 2003 and still thinks racial preferences are constitutionally permissible. He ducked the question of whether the political-process doctrine applied to the substance of the Michigan amendment by saying it didn’t apply to the process. Because racial preferences were imposed by unelected university administrators, he argued, the process change isn’t a “political” one at all. It appears to be a way of evading the central questions of the case, but it does have the virtue of being relatively simple.

Then there’s the Sotomayor dissent, which begins as follows: “We are fortunate to live in a democratic society. But . . .” An empty piety, followed by an equivocation, followed by a total of 58 pages–you know this is going to be a tough slog.

The most quoted part of Sotomayor’s opinion is this: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” This is a rejoinder to Chief Justice John Roberts’s assertion, in Parents Involved v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (2007), that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” (Roberts in turn rebutted Sotomayor in a separate concurrence to today’s decision, which we’re leaving out of our ranking by clarity.)

Robert’s statement was trivially true, which means that Sotomayor’s defies logic. Her argument amounts to an assertion that a ban on racial discrimination is a form of racial discrimination–that everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others. Also Orwellian is her claim that she wants “to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race.” Such an assertion is almost always disingenuous. After all, the way to speak openly and candidly is to speak openly and candidly. Declaring one’s intention to do so is at best superfluous throat clearing.

And while Sotomayor may be open, she isn’t candid. She presents a potted history of race in America in which there is a straight line from Jim Crow segregation through literacy tests to the Michigan amendment, which “involves this last chapter of discrimination”–even though it bans discrimination, and even though Sotomayor acknowledges that its substance is perfectly constitutional.

She also repeats the phrase “race matters” a lot. But then, it does. It’s how she got her job.

If Sotomayor wants an honest conversation about race then she should admit that culture matters more than race. The biggest problem for blacks and Hispanics are the negative self-destructive effects of ghetto culture. Counter-discrimination against whites, Asians and Jews cannot compensate for this.

BTW, ghetto culture is just as self-destructive for lower class whites. But nobody cares about them.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race"There are times when liberals seem naïve, or just willfully ignorant, but this statement shows how calculating and cynical liberals truly are, because they know, and better than anyone else how political correctness (which is the handmaiden of racial preferences) stifles any "real" or "candid" discussion of race, or gender. And they wouldn't have it any other way. So, when you lift the veil you see that the liberal world espouses an honesty that must be communicated through lies and subterfuge. It's a brave new cowardly world.

The SCOTUS has determined a line in MI that shouldn't be crossed because to do so means a naked grab at power would be condoned. CA by it's over ruling of the gay marriage ban instituted by voter referendum nullified the consent of the governed by substituting the politically correct judgment of a judge merely because the State refused to honor their responsibility to defend the voter choice under the Law. It appears some politically correct power grabs are more acceptable than others.

Let that be a lesson to you all, sue and settle is much more effective than a direct opposition to the will of the people. An interesting tactic that Conservatives would do well to practice as perfected by Obama's EPA. Find a newly conservative leaning State Attorney General, let a group sue over racial preferences and settle on zero racial preferences for any State institution.

The thing about Robert's statement in the past case is that it points out something that SHOULD be obvious to everyone. Much like when the small child points out that the Emperor, who was parading around to show off his finery, really had no cloths on. To acknowledge such an obvious fact would be an embarrassment to many, hence why many willfully pretend it doesn't exist and ridicule or marginalize those who point it out.

I thought Justice Sotomayor got her job because she has large and obvious talents. In jurisprudence. Or is that sexist? And do I care?

Roberts' dictum that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” may be trivially true because it is simply a restatement of the subject of a sentence in its predicate, but it is the only statement on "affirmative action", or "diversity", that makes any sense under our Constitution.

If God created all men, then once Samuel Colt made them equal, Man has no business messing with that scheme. This principal was carried forward into the Constitution and even into the 14th Amendment, although the 14th has more often been used as a hammer against equality than a bulwark for it.

She does not believe in success and failure as being a matter of personal responsibility. I remember seeing her interview on 60 Minutes and her statement that she could not state that anyone could be intrinsically bad.

I thought, that's the bottom line of a leftist: all people are good and bad behavior is due to oppression.

InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.